The implications of this ruling are significant, because of the finding that the Second Amendment applies universally to all individuals and is not based on membership in a militia: an argument frequently raised against universal gun rights. It should provide substantial weight to cases against similar gun bans in other jurisdictions, especially coming on the heels of the Superior Court negation of the San Francisco gun ban last year.
The importance of this ruling for citizens was summed up by one of the six plaintiffs, Tom Palmer. He had been assaulted and wanted a gun in his house for protection, but the law kept him vulnerable and afraid. He commented, "The fact is that the criminals don't obey the law and they do have guns. It's the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law." Now the court has given hope back to those citizens.
To reinforce the rights of citizens in the District, Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mike Ross (D-IN) have introduced H.R. 1399, the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act," which would formalize recognition of the validity of the Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia, clarifying questions about whether the protections of the Bill of Rights apply in DC. Supporters of the gun ban had argued that residents of the District did not enjoy the full protection of the Constitution because of the District's unique status under direct federal administration. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) commented:
"The Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms and defend themselves. That is why next week I will reintroduce my legislation to repeal the existing ban. Protection of constitutional rights does not cease when you cross into the borders of the District of Columbia. Not only is Washington, D.C.’s gun ban unconstitutional, but it also has been a public policy failure as seen in the rise in crime since its enactment. The time has finally come to change course."
The legislation is expected to have strong support in the House and Senate, but it couldn't hurt to write your representatives to encourage them to support it. Previous versions have passed the House with strong bipartisan support, but the bill has never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
I'm gonna go get my lawn chair and a six pack. This thread should be a lot of fun.
Keep your references handy, Dave!
2 - Dave Nalle
I've got my lawn chair and a six shooter - seemed more appropriate.
Dave
3 - RJ
Fine article. I eagerly await the anti-Second Amendment howls...
4 - Dave Nalle
Hell, it's been most of a day. Maybe they've finally come to their senses. Or they could be at 7th and Rhode Island picking up some smack and hookers.
Dave
5 - BriMan
I am a Progressive who has no truck with the second amendment.
I dont think assault weapons belong in the hands of the average citizenry since you can neither use them for sport and a citizen militia (the only other possible purpose) has been replaced by a standing army (a standing army being against the grain of Jeffersonian democracy). These weapons are for killing people and nothing else.
Want to fondle your six shooter? Go right ahead.
It would have been more interesting to actually see the violent crime statistics in the article pre-ban and post-ban rather than just quotes from preening politicians. Not that I dont believe what is being said but a picture is worth a lot right?
6 - Dave Nalle
These weapons are for killing people and nothing else.
Sometimes people need to be killed.
It would have been more interesting to actually see the violent crime statistics in the article pre-ban and post-ban rather than just quotes from preening politicians. Not that I dont believe what is being said but a picture is worth a lot right?
I'll see what I can find on the stats, but I'm not sure how helpful they'll be. From what I know in general, crime continued to rise in DC for about a decade after the ban and then began declining - but not as fast as the nationwide decline in crime at the same time. The result was that crime in DC was actually lower than it had been 30 years before during the period it came to be known as the 'murder capital'.
What we might be able to find out in the next few years is whether striking down the ban has any positive effects. But as demonstrated before, the statistical impact of expanding gun rights is usually fairly small - though the impact on the lives of the peoples whose lives are saved is enormous. It's also damned hard to measure how much crime DIDN'T happen.
Dave
7 - zingzing
come to our senses? hrm. this is a good test. if the murder rate goes up, will you get rid of your guns?
i'm not going to go buy any guns (should it go down), but i will concede a point. get back to me in a few years.
8 - zingzing
"Sometimes people need to be killed."
dave... you tempt me.
9 - BriMan
Dave - always the bearer of good news with a "but..."
You want to know what does have a large impact on crime Dave - legalized abortion. Takes about 20 years to see it though. Read "Freakonomics".
But as demonstrated before, the statistical impact of expanding gun rights is usually fairly small - though the impact on the lives of the peoples whose lives are saved is enormous.
Yeah - and if the woman had hair and teeth she'd be beautiful!!
10 - Dave Nalle
come to our senses? hrm. this is a good test. if the murder rate goes up, will you get rid of your guns?
If I lived in DC I might. But living out here in the country I need them to kill varmints.
You want to know what does have a large impact on crime Dave - legalized abortion. Takes about 20 years to see it though. Read "Freakonomics".
Not news to me. I assume you say this because you make the usual ignorant leftist assumption that because I'm pro-gun I'm probably some sort of bible-thumping pro-life idiot. Guess again. I'm all for abortion. Best thing you can do for society, and an expression of the fundamental rights of the mother, assuming she has the consent of the father.
Dave
11 - BriMan
Dave-
I was not making an assumption just an opportunity to educate the masses.
We can talk about the rights of the father/donor in another thread sometime.
12 - STM
Dave Nalle wrote: "But as demonstrated before, the statistical impact of expanding gun rights is usually fairly small - though the impact on the lives of the peoples whose lives are saved is enormous."
The impact upon those whose lives are lost because there are more guns in the community is also enormous. Just like the length of your nose, which really ain't gettin' any shorter, old boy.
Bloody nice try, though ....
13 - zingzing
"I assume you say this because you make the usual ignorant leftist assumption that because I'm pro-gun I'm probably some sort of bible-thumping pro-life idiot."
and you make the assumption that because one person thinks (really, did he?) you are pro-gun that you are therefore a bible-thumping pro-life idiot that that's a usual ignorant leftist assumption.
you KNOW that most of the pro-gun, pro-capital punishment crowd is also part of the anti-abortion crowd. if leftists can say "you can kill a baby, but not a criminal," then rightists can say "you can kill a criminal, but not a baby." and the rightists look right. but it's a complicated world.
if i had a gun, i'd shoot myself in the foot.
14 - BriMan
Thanks for pointing out (again) the merely obvious Dave - I am talking about the impacts - not the nose thing. That is just another stilted remark from the unremarkable.
15 - zingzing
dave: "zignzing: if the murder rate goes up, will you get rid of your guns?
If I lived in DC I might. But living out here in the country I need them to kill varmints."
like what, the hippies in town for sxsw? cacti? what have you really needed that gun for in the past year?
name me one thing you've shot that you've really needed to shoot.
16 - Dave Nalle
The impact upon those whose lives are lost because there are more guns in the community is also enormous. Just like the length of your nose, which really ain't gettin' any shorter, old boy.
The mistake here is in thinking there's ONE community. That's not the case. There's the community of honest citizens and the community of criminals. The criminals have guns regardless of any bans or laws. The honest citizens don't have them unless permitted by law.
Dave
17 - Dave Nalle
and you make the assumption that because one person thinks (really, did he?) you are pro-gun that you are therefore a bible-thumping pro-life idiot that that's a usual ignorant leftist assumption.
If I encountered that assumption just once you'd have a point. But I encounter it over and over and over. It's not just one person's ignorance, it's an ignorant cultural assumption endemic to the left.
you KNOW that most of the pro-gun, pro-capital punishment crowd is also part of the anti-abortion crowd.
See, you make the same assumption. I bet that's not the case at all. I suspect that more than half of those who are pro gun are also pro-life or at least neutral on abortion. Did you see the article? The sponsors of the gun rights bill in DC are DEMOCRATS, not Republicans.
if leftists can say "you can kill a baby, but not a criminal," then rightists can say "you can kill a criminal, but not a baby." and the rightists look right. but it's a complicated world.
I consider myself 'pro death'. I'm in favor of self-defense, capital punishment and abortion. Too damned many people anyway.
like what, the hippies in town for sxsw?
Zing, those hippies are the kind of people I hang out with most of the time. Some of them go shooting with me, even.
cacti?
I do hate cacti, but shooting them isn't terribly effective.
what have you really needed that gun for in the past year?
Well, I raise chickens, so I've needed to shoot various things which go after them - usually snakes.
name me one thing you've shot that you've really needed to shoot.
In the last year I'd say the most deserving target was when I was called over by a neighbor to shoot a 10 rattle rattlesnake that had decided to take up residence in their kid's playscape.
We're getting a lot of rattlesnakes in our area now because they're being forced to relocate as a result of highway construction.
Dave
18 - zingzing
"If I encountered that assumption just once you'd have a point. But I encounter it over and over and over. It's not just one person's ignorance, it's an ignorant cultural assumption endemic to the left."
meh. i don't assume of individuals. at least not those individuals capable of putting a string of words together without using a gun.
"I suspect that more than half of those who are pro gun are also pro-life or at least neutral on abortion."
oh, horse shit. fuck off with that nonsense. you pro-shooting people shit all over women.
haha.
maybe i did make the assumption. i assume the worst sometimes. but, most of the pro-gun fuckers i know are little hicks from nowhere, fuckoff usa.
and you have to know that a lot of you pro-gunners are little fuckin hicks who like to shoot at cans.
"I consider myself 'pro death'. I'm in favor of self-defense, capital punishment and abortion. Too damned many people anyway."
well, at least you're honest. or something like it.
"like what, the hippies in town for sxsw?
Zing, those hippies are the kind of people I hang out with most of the time. Some of them go shooting with me, even."
hrm. i dunno. i'm talking about the out-of-towners, and texas is, in itself, a town. you really hang out with the white belt crowd? gawd, even i've outgrown that. of course, i'll drink with them and fuck their cute little indie-chick girlfriends. if that's what you call "shooting."
ok, so you shoot rattlesnakes. doesn't decrease the amount of property crime around there, does it? can't you get rid of rattlesnakes without the gun? my mom picks up snakes and snaps their necks. she doesn't like toads. i dunno if she's fuckin around with rattlesnakes.
still. rattlesnakes? ok. you can have a rifle for doing that. but no hand gun. no .45s. you don't need to blow a hole the size of your head in a rattlesnake to kill it.
meh. really, i think hunting, other than the horrible shit it does to the animal, is an okay reason for having a gun. it's your truck with the universe. whatever. if everyone had to carry around a rifle, then everyone would know who had the guns. life wouldn't be so hard. handguns, however, need to be banned and/or shoved up their owners' assholes butt first. butt on butt! i call for butt on butt!
19 - Henry
"I dont think assault weapons belong in the hands of the average citizenry..."
Care to define what an "assault weapon" is? A baseball bat used wrongly could be an assault weapon. Coult it be an evil-looking gun? Define "evil-looking" then. My son has a semi-automatic shotgun with a ten-round magazine, complete with a pistol grip folding stock. He loves to take it to the range. He's never used it to assault someone, though.
20 - Clavos
Even box cutters can be assault weapons...
21 - Michael J. West
Now be honest, Dave. You were wondering when your favorite D.C. resident would weigh in, right?
And it does seem appropriate that somebody living in D.C. should weigh in, doesn't it?
All right, then. I have no problem with the Second Amendment. I have no problem with the handgun ban being overturned. I don't own a gun, have no intention of buying one, and never have, so it's never mattered much to me either way, honestly.
The problems I have here are located in principle.
Having grown up here, Mr. Nalle, you're no doubt familiar with the arguments I'm about to relate, but I'll do it anyway.
For example, the District's defense of its gun ban in the court was drawn from the precise wording and originalist intent of the amendment itself:
Thus, based on my bolded phrase above, D.C. argued that the second amendment applied only to the states. D.C. is not a state.
It's part of that damnable Voting Representation issue that we Washingtonians are always on about. That damn double standard of "You guys don't get a voice in Congress--you know, the foremost right of citizens of a republic--nor do you get to apply for the statehood that would allow you such a voice, but we do expect you to follow the laws that we make just as if you were a state."
So to me the issue isn't really guns vs. no guns. It's an issue of being selectively held to American standards. D.C. is held to the standards of U.S. statehood in every regard except the one that matters most - representation in the federal government. So if we're not part of the federal government, why should we be dictated by it?
22 - Michael J. West
D.C. isn't a state.
That's what the District's lawyers argued in court: that the Second Amendment only applies to the states, and since D.C. isn't a state it is not bound to uphold the amendment.
For me, this isn't about guns. I don't own a gun, never have, and never plan on it, so it makes little difference to me either way. It's about the curious double standard that's applied to the District of Columbia. We are held to the standards of the 50 states in absolutely every regard--except, of course, the most important one, that of participating in federal government. So it pisses me off when the District is dictated to by a legislative body in which we have no voice.
Again, I have no quarrel with guns in D.C. My quarrel is with being ordered around about guns (or anything else) by a government in which we are not permitted to participate. Since, however, we DID elect the local government that enacted and the gun ban, as far as I'm concerned it's legitimate.
23 - Nancy
In this one I think I side with Dave. First off, some people DO deserve to be shot. And a lot of them live in DC or the immediate environs. Myself, I'd start on The Hill in the sacred halls of congress getting rid of the 2-legged vermin there, before moving on to the WH, but I suppose that's another thread. Oh well.
I am interested about further information on 2 pts. Clavos can probably supply one, Dave might be able to cough up the other:
Since Florida has become a gun-toting for self-protection state, HAVE the violent crime stats gone down now citizens have self-protection rights? What's the story on that? It might indicate how things might follow in DC or anywhere else as well. Clavos, this is your area, since you're a Floridian.
Dave, if I remember aright, this gun ban in DC was the result of a popular referendum, i.e. the majority of citizens of DC - the residents themselves - voted to ban guns. It was a non-resdent congressman (arrogant as always) who demanded the 'right' to reverse what the general populace wanted, for his own self-interest, as usual. What about "the majority rules"? In this case, the majority wanted to ban guns. And they're the ones who have to live there 24/7/12, not this congressional maggot, who can run home to Green Pastures, East Dakota (or where ever) any time he wants. Why doesn't the majority rule in this case? Are you (& the law) saying that people have to live with outsiders imposing laws (or negating them) they don't agree with as a community & not just as individuals? It strikes me that those that live there are the only ones who have any say in what the rules should be on their own turf. Otherwise it's like saying illegals should have a say in how things are run here in the US, isn't it?
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to arguments for & against, but expecially Clavvie's stats, if any.
24 - Jack Burton
I dont think assault weapons belong in the hands of the average citizenry since you can neither use them for sport
"Assault rifles" are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk like briman who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.
Assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America's version, the M-4, wasn't too bad either.
They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:
--lightweight
--of a smaller caliber
--easy to maintain
--rugged
--Shot from the hip if necessary
--fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
--Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.
Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn't needed it wasn't on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter's cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This "look" is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the "why" of it.
Now, being lightweight created it's own set of problems.
The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn't want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a "shroud" was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn't add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.
Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier's nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.
Soldiers don't like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn't do any good if you've left it all back at the barracks.
This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?
Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that's about all it's powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.
The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this - you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he's moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?
The actual .223 bullet really isn't that much larger than a fat grain of rice.
So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term "poodle killer" for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.
Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play... thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn't hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn't necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.
The rifle didn't have to be super accurate and it wasn't. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it's a job for artillery, not rifles.
The main distinguishing feature, though, was it's ability to "select" fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.
The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can't hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it's firing.
Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.
There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.
Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It's just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.
Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say "assault weapons."
The guns sold to the civilian market that "look like" the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It's nothing special, and it's the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.
Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.
The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.
"Machine guns" and "automatic weapons" are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.
Those who talk about "machine guns" blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.
What the anti-gunners mean when they say "assault weapons" are guns that are made to "look like" the real ones. And that's it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.
One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn't do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an "assault rifle." Yet, internally it would be the same little ol' .22.
What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad's Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.
Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It's certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob's deer hunting rifle fires.
And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, small feral hogs, and other destructive pests, and it's even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.
Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are big and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No, that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don't use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn't mean that both hammers and screwdrivers have their proper uses.
These types of rifles are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. They shoot a common and inexpensive cartridge. They're customizable, easy to find parts for, and don't have a lot of recoil.
Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for these same reasons.
A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the 'dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.
These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That's a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.
The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It's a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you'll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.
Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as "heroes" and want to emulate them.
Again, these guns may "look" like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one... they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob's hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.
Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.
25 - Jack Burton
iDave, if I remember aright, this gun ban in DC was the result of a popular referendum, i.e. the majority of citizens of DC - the residents themselves - voted to ban guns. What about "the majority rules"? In this case, the majority wanted to ban guns.
And what if the black majority wanted to ban white people from drinking at the local water foutain... or riding in the front of the bus? Or if they voted to license journalists? Or to do away with the Fourth Amendment just to make the job of the police easier?
I am assuming from your comments that you would have no problem with any of those actions. The majority rules.